Re: Enhance seq-min and seq-max

[Michael Heerdegen]

Nicolas Petton <address@hidden> writes:

> > I wonder if I should rather give one general definition in the
> > function body and handle the four cases (KEY/PREDICATE given/not
> > given) in a compiler macro.  Then in compiled code there would be no
> > runtime tests and it would be optimized for the respective case.
>
> As you wish, but depending on what exactly you have in mind, it might be
> better not to do it, so that `seq-min' and `seq-max' can still easily be
> overwritten for custom seq types.

I guess what I planned is nonsense: If the method is chosen at run-time,
it doesn't make sense to optimize the method for lists with a compiler
macro.  It's not a critical issue anyway, so I'll just go with what I
have so far (and finish the documentation stuff).


Michael.